draw_get_properties

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get properties and points', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether the drawing must exist, what happens on invalid ID, or if any state changes occur. The lack of explicit safety or error context leaves transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the action verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter getter, this is minimally viable. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify what 'properties and points' include, nor how they are structured. It could mention return format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, the current level is acceptable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter entity_id, with a description that says 'Entity ID of the drawing (from draw_list)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('properties and points of a specific drawing'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like draw_list (which lists drawings) and draw_remove_one (which removes) by focusing on a single drawing's data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Though the description itself doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the parameter schema instructs that entity_id comes from draw_list, providing a clear prerequisite. The context of sibling tools makes the intended usage obvious: use draw_list to obtain an ID, then this tool to fetch its details. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple getter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.